|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 11, 2004 14:06:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalFlashback on Feb 11, 2004 15:41:16 GMT
Sun King I don't mean to sound unappreciative of your work and all, but that picture you have been using from Sgt Pepper is not an original photo and has been stretched man! I suggest you stop using that one because it makes a bad comparison and is easily spotted as such. Do you have the LP version? I would think someone else here would be able to give you a scan of it if you don't have it. I do not have access to my own files at this very moment or I would be happy to supply you with one of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 11, 2004 15:48:02 GMT
Total FlashbackThat photo is not been stretched! Yes it was retouched (adding 'some more chin') but not stretched at all. Already checked "n" times..... ...animations loading...please wait...    
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalFlashback on Feb 11, 2004 15:58:07 GMT
Sun King, I don't believe YOU stretched it, so forgive me if you think I am saying that. What I AM saying is the picture from the CD is wrong. The whole thing is not right because someone else messed it up. I have compared them myself, holding both the CD and the LP in my hands and the CD pic is messed up man. Changing the red background to mustard yellow doesn't help it any either, bro! All of their heads in the CD pic are stretched a bit and there is some distortion on the sides, especially on Ringo, probably from a camera lens.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 11, 2004 16:02:48 GMT
That photo is taken directly from 20th anniversary CD 1987 booklet. In the same booklet there is also the picture you mention. I have the Sgt. Pepper 1967 LP copy too. It's just the same....nothing is changed.  I will publish the comparison with that picture you tell....too P.S. wait for an upgrade of my previous answer... |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 11, 2004 16:32:01 GMT
..from FULL vintage documentation (thanks xpt626)  |
|
|
|
Post by TotalFlashback on Feb 11, 2004 18:12:34 GMT
Sorry, I am not buying this one. If you are going to be overly critical of skeptics using newer material about the younger Paul, then we need to be equally critical of the so-called vintage photos we use in our own comparisons. I'm sorry, that 1987 CD cover art is stretched and is therefore not usable. It isn't vintage by any stretch of the imagination. I have read where you have told people to use old magazine pics of Paul for comparisons because they are more original...well I think the 1967 Sgt Pepper LP pics are much more original than the CD which was released 20 years later.
What it all boils down to is YOU have written the rules here. Nothing anyone says or does to debunk your presentation counts for sh*t because no matter what, you will always be right. Situational ethics will dig your grave Sun King.
I'm outta here...and off this lame assed forum
|
|
|
|
Post by xray on Feb 12, 2004 13:40:45 GMT
I'd like to suggest if it is it possible to get vintage McCartney photos taken prior to '66,, that is; head-shots,profiles etc have him
'aged 'by computer as James Paul would look today and compare the results with 'Faul' as he looks today? Especially in similar positions and poses. Also the super-imposed measurements could be used as well.
The Police do this for some 'missing persons' when they've disappeared for many years.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 12, 2004 13:43:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by TTTM on Feb 12, 2004 19:57:11 GMT
Total FlashbackThat photo is not been stretched! Yes it was retouched (adding 'some more chin') but not stretched at all. Then why the hell are you using a doctored photo?
BTW, that pic that you've always been using (Bill White Album) has been flipped. I am NOT accusing you of anything. Flaming Pie |
|
|
|
Post by xray on Feb 12, 2004 20:06:21 GMT
No offense SK but I'm not a moron, sending posts here because I've got nothing else better to do with my time. Your work here with the 60IF team is exhaustive and excellent stuff. Still, you are criticised for using some photographs that are considered inadmissible as evidence for whatever reason and which means not every sinner out there is 'taking in' the gospel. In spite of your great work!!; you still lhave 'doubting Thomases' and infidels out there. I am only suggesting (and I'd do it myself if I had the expertise and the means) to 'age' an early photo of James Paul by computer. Then you'd have a prima facie argument to compare the measurements of your other work.(which I think is excellent!) |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 12, 2004 20:17:22 GMT
Please re-read what I've already said just in this thread. To help you I repeat: "Yes it was retouched (adding 'some more chin') but not stretched at all." Do you understand english? Or I wrote wrong? Sorry I know it. I write very bad in english. How come someone still understand me....  About the vertically flipped photos... That was very usual in the '60. If you are a Beatles documents collector you can see that many 45rpm covers have the photo "vertically" flipped. It's a normal procedure before making comparions to check if the photo was originally "mirror printed" or not. That's all |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 12, 2004 20:23:31 GMT
No offense SK but I'm not a moron, sending posts here because I've got nothing else better to do with my time. Your work here with the 60IF team is exhaustive and excellent stuff. Thank You "inadmissible as evidence for whatever reason" ...interesting...please what reason? It was a very "early" idea in this forum. And is still a good idea. Having more time I will do it. But ...I can hear by now people saying: "Ah! It's not valid because you have doctored it!" It coud sound silly, X-ray , but this was (and still is!) a typical technological level of reply made to my work by the so called "skeptics" |
|
|
|
Post by TTTM on Feb 12, 2004 20:25:50 GMT
Please re-read what I've already said just in this thread. To help you I repeat: "Yes it was retouched (adding 'some more chin') but not stretched at all." But it is still doctored. And if you add some more chin, then your face is going to look longer. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 12, 2004 20:42:04 GMT
But it is still doctored. And if you add some more chin, then your face is going to look longer. Flaming: the reference is still the distance between the nose base and the eyes lacrymal ducta line. The chin lenght (or shape) doesn't affect the comparison. ...animation loading..please wait  BTW In "Hey Jude" photo shot Faul has the chin not doctored. Satisfied Flaming Pie? or.... |
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Feb 12, 2004 20:52:54 GMT
All this has been covered before. Same stuff different day!
BTW Sun King, when will your site be back up and running?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 12, 2004 20:58:56 GMT
Rojopa: thank you for the support!
My site(s) is (are) still running.
Are you reffering to Uberkinder's one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Feb 12, 2004 21:11:15 GMT
You are correct Sun King. I was referring to Uberkinder's site.
I can't believe that there was so much negativity on this board. I never gave 60IF much thought or credence, but accepted the fact that from 67 till present, the one we know of as Paul is an imposter. Why couldn't people just concentrate on this aspect.
And it is a shame what they did to Chris. Got an message from the asses to go over to their site. I checked it out but after reading what they did on this board they won't see me there again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Feb 12, 2004 21:12:46 GMT
And may I add: Thanks Sun King and Uberkinder for opening up my eyes to the reality that was before me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Feb 12, 2004 21:15:44 GMT
Sun King: What is your web site address?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Feb 13, 2004 1:01:59 GMT
Sun King: What is your web site address? At the main page of this forum you can find: Physical Evidence, 60IF, FAQ, Reference Documentation, How to Register Well, click "Reference Documentation": there is the list of my pages.... |
|
|
|
Post by Otacon on Feb 14, 2004 3:20:32 GMT
Or just click on the little house in the bar to the left underneath the user-name.
|
|
|
|
Post by AcrossTheUniverse on Feb 14, 2004 3:49:20 GMT
here:http://macca4ever.proboards26.com/index.cgi?board=PID&action=display&thread=1076441944
on the skeptics forum, they managed to effectively show that the '87 Pepper pics are stretched and match up much better when taken off, so maybe you should stop using them SK, I think they hurt the cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Feb 14, 2004 3:53:51 GMT
Was the CD version really stretched or was the LP version shrunk so that Billy would look more like Paul back then? That's the real question. I don't believe the the CD version was stretched so much as the dimensions as were originally photographed were finally used since by then, the public were used to Faul's dimensions. We need to check the dimensions of John, George, and Ringo from each of these pictures to see which match. However, as I recall, John's head on the CD version has already been matched up correctly. On top of this, Faul's image may be a montage in any case which means that George, Ringo, and John may match in both photos. I don't really dabble much in this technical side of things so if one of our resident technicians would like to do this please?  |
|
|
|
Post by AcrossTheUniverse on Feb 14, 2004 4:09:53 GMT
it was done on the macca4ever forum, just click the link and the job is done
|
|
